So, the combat. Takes perhaps 15-20 minutes, or so people seem to want. Everybody making dice rolls, an accumulation of results that lead to victory or defeat with a chance to turn that around.
Now, the exploration. Takes - how long? Involves - how many people and how many rolls? Opportunities to change the course of the event after the dice are rolled - how many?
If the second situation is resolved in one or two dice rolls, with involvement by only one person, then I think you have a problem.
No doubt.
The exploration section of the game, if it is to be an independent pillar, needs to last about as long and be about as complex as the combat section of the game. It should involve the whole party (in different ways) and several rolls and unique powers to affect it.
When I think of the things that go into exploration, if I were to codify it's context for game mechanics, I'd say...
- First, the players need to be able to make progress toward the endpoint. This includes finding the endpoint in the first place, and making swift progress towards it. Rogues are the best at both of these (divination and teleportation might work in a pinch, but magic's messy and expensive). They open doors, climb walls, disarm traps, scout ahead, and relay information back to the party. Rogues are the shining light, but other classes (such as Rangers, Wizards, Fighters, etc.) also contribute, much like how the rogue still contributes in combat. And there are circumstances the rogue can't handle as well -- if some heavy stone statue needs to be moved, your rogue is probably better off getting the fighter than trying to move it themselves.
- Second, the players need to be able to survive getting from here to there. They need supplies, they need survival resources, they need to endure weather, they need to find food and water, and they need to be able to keep up the march. The rogue isn't a shining star here, but Fighters, Druids, Clerics, and others might shine pretty bright.
GameDoc said:
I think that speaks to the need for the fighter to have some role out of combat.
I'm not sure this is looking at it quite right.
It should be said that, as a matter of designing to include many different styles,
every single character should be able to do something on every pillar. Even a big dumb fighter should be able to do something in exploration and role-playing...and indeed, you'll find that by the fiction, they should still be able to. Big dumb fighters are great for hauling people around on ropes, climbing up walls, keeping watch, going shirtless in the blizzard, and walking face-first into the traps. When talking with others, big dumb fighters are good distractions, good roadblocks, and good obfuscation.
The mechanics don't need to pigeonhole every fighter as "the big dumb guy," but that should also be a valid archetype. So you can see that even big dumb guys can contribute successfully to each of the three classic D&D activities.
But baseline competence doesn't mean mechanical equality. The fighter doesn't need their very own unique noncombat special abilities. The fighter HAS a Strength score. Presumably, if it is high, they can bend those bars, lift that gate, climb that wall in full plate, and leap that pit in heavy armor, all without needing any special mechanics to achieve that.
The rogue, however, should have special exploration abilities all their own. Climbing walls, opening locks, finding and disabling traps, lurking in the darkness...these aren't mere functions of Dexterity or Intelligence, they are abilities that the rogue can use simply to declare something a reality, just like a spell can (and just like a fighter can with Expertise Dice). The rogue should be able to drop a dice on the table and say, "That trap is gone now," or "That door is unlocked now," or "I am invisible in the shadows."
A Fighter can use a Dex check to maybe hide. A Rogue
just does it. And if he has to roll, he
gets to do it better. Poof. I'm awesome.
In the same way, a Rogue can roll an attack roll and maybe hit. A fighter just does it, or just does it better.
